Menu
ECC - European Consumer Claims powering Timeshare Release
Call Now  - European Consumer Claims powering Timeshare ReleaseCall now: 0203 7699 164

Recent Victories

Twenty two positive awards valued at £447,895 including a case against Silverpoint valued at £49,312.

Twenty two positive awards valued at £447,895 including a case against Silverpoint valued at £49,312.

We are pleased to inform you of the latest Spanish court victories over the last few weeks. M1 Legal secured TWENTY TWO positive awards with a total value of £447,895, which is an average of £20,358 per case.  Our highest award from these latest results is confirmed against Silverpoint valued at £49,312. 

Please see below a breakdown of the substantive results:

1st Court of Instance:

  • Silverpoint - At Arona court number one, the judge declared the contract null due to lack of property and contract period information, law 42/1998.  Amount awarded - £49,312.
  • Explotación Hotelera - Also in Arona, the judge declared the contract null due to lack of contract period information, law 04/2012.  Amount awarded - £23,800.
  • Marriott x 5 - In Marbella court Number four, the judge declared all five contracts null due to lack of property information, (Laws 42/1998 and 04/2012). Amounts awarded - £17,138, £8,846, £29,441, £33,482, £35,796. 
  • Regency Limited (Taboo Inversiones) - Tabobo Inversiones once again is considered illegitimate, and the lawsuit is only against Regency Limited due to "legal doubts," but they do recognise it. Despite it being proven that Tabobo is responsible for maintenance and executes the contract, surprisingly they do not consider their legitimacy (Article 1.5 Law 42/1998), which is outrageous. Adrian (M1 Legal lawyer representing the case) will appeal and will include Marabú S.L., who owns the apartments. Adrian will also request a declaration of Regency Limited's assets in other enforcement proceedings, which is concerning them, we will see in due course what transpires, (law 42/1998) due to lack of contract period information.  Amount awarded - £40,254.
  • CLC Paradise Trading x 3 - At Arona court numbers one and four, the judge declared the contract in one case due to the lack of contract period information, the other two cases were for both lack of property and contract period details. . Amounts awarded - £9853, £13,904, £14,386.

Appeals:

  • Diamond Resorts -  The Provincial Court in Tenerife reversed the First Instance decision and declared the contract null and void for lack of property information, (Law 04/2012) with an express order for costs.   Amount Awarded - £14,363.
  • Diamond Resorts -  The Court of Appeal in Malaga has confirmed in full the judgment from the First Instance that declared the contract null due to lack of property information (laws 42/1998 and 04/2012)    Amount Awarded - £32,670.
  • Explotación Hotelera -  The Court of Appeal in Malaga has confirmed in full the judgment from the First Instance that declared the contract null due to lack of property information (law 42/1998)   Amount Awarded - £23,800.
  • Anfi - The Court of Appeal in Las Palmas has confirmed in full the judgment from the First Instance that declared the contract null due to lack of property information, (Law 42/1998).  Amount Awarded - £12,860.
  • Fuerteventura -  The Court of Appeal in Tenerife has confirmed in full the judgment from the First Instance declaring the contract null due to lack of property information, (Law 04/2012).  Amount Awarded - £11,160.
  • CLC Sucursal x 3 - At the Court of Appeal in Malaga, it was confirmed in full the judgments from the First Instance declaring all four contracts null and void due to lack of property information. (Law 04/2012).  Amounts Awarded - £10,146, £13,661, £20,077. 
  • CLC Continental Resorts - The Court of Appeal in Tenerife has confirmed in full the judgment from the First Instance that declared the contract null due to lack of property and contract period information, (Law 04/2012).   Amount Awarded - £17,794.

 

We also received a positive decision against Anfi whereby the case was decided in our favour twice, both in the First Instance and in the Court of Appeal, declaring the contract null due to lack of property information (Law 42/1998). Anfi took this particular case to the Supreme Court in Spain, which has now also ruled in our favour confirming the previous judgments.

Jurisdiction: 

Six cases valued at £82,960

Our jurisdiction positive results were:

  •  Three cases against CLC World
  •  Two cases against Diamond Resorts
  • One cases against Marriott

In one of the CLC World cases, (CLC UK PLC) they requested the discontinuance of the lawsuit pending a preliminary ruling on the question of jurisdiction before the European Court.  The Court Of Appeal has declined this request, declaring that the lawsuit continues to proceed under Spanish law.

In the Marriott case, the judge has declined the jurisdiction issue raised by Marriott based on the EU regulation 1215/2012 and Spanish Law LOPJ art.22, declaring the Spanish courts competent to process the claim.

In one of the Diamond Resort's cases, the judge declined the defendant's jurisdiction argument declaring the Spanish courts competent to process the claim.  In the other Diamond Resorts case, the judge declared that Diamond Resorts Europe (the company that absorbed Sunterra) is liable to be claimed under Spanish jurisdiction.

In two of the CLC World cases (Continental and Paradise Trading), There was an appeal for reversal which was declined by the judge which ends the jurisdiction issue.

All cases mentioned above will now proceed to the next step.

A great achievement to all involved in these cases.

About Timeshare Release

During the Timeshare sales boom of the 80s & 90s, potential buyers were lured in by the promise of affordable exotic holidays, flexible exchange programmes and the impression that Timeshare would be a valuable "investment".

In an industry with little or no regulation, high pressure sales tactics were rife and contract smallprint was often glossed over and explained away by sharp salespeople.

Many Timeshare buyers were therefore unaware that they were actually making significant, long term financial commitments on behalf of themselves and their families.

To find out how you can escape the Timeshare Trap please complete the short Timeshare Release Wizard now.

The Timeshare Trap

The timeshare trap

For many Timeshare owners, annual maintenance fees were barely considered token amounts in the early "honeymoon period" of ownership.

However, year-on-year increases imposed by the resorts over time now mean that the maintenance fees have risen to become substantial sums.

Owners are also facing the prospect of ongoing yearly fee increases and realising that they (and their families) are often committed to long term contracts for generations to come.

Please try our Future Fees Calculator to estimate your liabilities over the term of your Timeshare contract, based on an annual increase of 7.5%.

If you're concerned about rising fees and how to escape the Timeshare Trap, please contact us today.

Timeshare Owner Reports

Timeshare owner reports

Recent comments from RCI Timeshare owners who have come to us for help with contract cancellation:

Mr Steve R, Middlesex - RCI/Hollywood Mirage

“We 'swapped ‘another place in Tenerife for this in order to move to the points system. Since then, getting exchanges to desirable resorts proves almost impossible, irrespective of in-season or off-season.”

Mrs Rachael B, Yorkshire - RCI Europe

“I purchased my timeshare in 1999 and have been a timeshare member ever since. More often than not, I have not be able to go where I wanted and have ended up giving a few weeks to Friends, etc to book somewhere they wanted in order not to lose the weeks. I have then stayed in a hotel!! I am desperately trying to get rid of the timeshare and am now paying Timeshare Shop in Manchester to get rid of it for me.”

Read more...